Template talk:Did you know/HMS Prince Charles (1930)
HMS Prince Charles (1930)
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know, unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle
- ... that Operation Archery was delayed by a full day because HMS Prince Charles was filled with 14 feet of seawater – 150 tons in all?
- Reviewed: 13th Light Bomber Squadron ([1])
Created by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk). Self nom at 18:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:
Hook
- Length, format, content rules: I've fixed the en dash (and ran the script on the article ... very easy). The required metric equiv. of 14 ft is a bore, I know, but many readers will have trouble conceiving it. Why not remove the depth measurement and go with tons alone: sounds huge.
- Source: Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Interest: yes, but see my comments below. Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Image suitability, if applicable:
- ALT hooks, if proposed:
Article
- Length: Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Vintage: Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Neutrality: Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: The London Gazette said 14 ft 8 inches, not 14 ft. .... Checks out for CP. Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Copyvio: Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting: Well-written except for unit/value glitches. 24 h clock ... can you note my fixes? Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments/discussion:Please note "double" quotes normally on WP. I've fixed. Can you revert my "times" and spacing changes in the infobox if naval expressions are different? I fixed date formats. Tony (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, little confused here. I can't see that I've used any quotes at all, double or otherwise! Do you mean where the name of the ship is italicised? As for the rest, I'm not sure about the spacing and unit changes, but it looks good at present, so I won't change it. Times are normally 2400 in naval parlance (the words 'hours' is pronounced, but not written), but again, I can't see a problem with having it either way. In case you can't tell, I'm not an MoS person! Finally, the only problem with your hook suggestion is that a ship could be filled with 150 tons of water and it be only 6 inches deep, or 150 tons and it be 14 feet, depending on where the water is and how big the ship is. 14' would cover the bottom two decks, and possibly part of the third deck. I'd appreciate some MILHIST/SHIPS people commenting on this, as I'm not sure whether tons or feet would be better. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- In regards to the quotes, Tony is referring to "... part of a series of four 'fast ferries' for cross-channel use ..." in the civilian service section. Fast ferries should be in double quotes or not at all. Something I noticed when editing the article is that ref 3 looks off. Surely The Times Union is the newspaper and Robert Law is the author. But I couldn't fix it myself as I don't what the title is. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see - yes, fast ferries should not really be in quotes, it's a habit I've picked up, along with my overuse of hyphens. As for ref 3, it's actually Robert Law's obituary in the Times Union - the title is "Robert Law", and there is no named author. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm guilty of the same habit. I fixed ref 3, although the title is now "Law, Robert"—not sure if that's how it was printed or not. If not, please fix. Other than that, I will just echo Tony above and say it all looks good (although I have no idea whether the hook should mention the depth or not). Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see - yes, fast ferries should not really be in quotes, it's a habit I've picked up, along with my overuse of hyphens. As for ref 3, it's actually Robert Law's obituary in the Times Union - the title is "Robert Law", and there is no named author. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- In regards to the quotes, Tony is referring to "... part of a series of four 'fast ferries' for cross-channel use ..." in the civilian service section. Fast ferries should be in double quotes or not at all. Something I noticed when editing the article is that ref 3 looks off. Surely The Times Union is the newspaper and Robert Law is the author. But I couldn't fix it myself as I don't what the title is. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, little confused here. I can't see that I've used any quotes at all, double or otherwise! Do you mean where the name of the ship is italicised? As for the rest, I'm not sure about the spacing and unit changes, but it looks good at present, so I won't change it. Times are normally 2400 in naval parlance (the words 'hours' is pronounced, but not written), but again, I can't see a problem with having it either way. In case you can't tell, I'm not an MoS person! Finally, the only problem with your hook suggestion is that a ship could be filled with 150 tons of water and it be only 6 inches deep, or 150 tons and it be 14 feet, depending on where the water is and how big the ship is. 14' would cover the bottom two decks, and possibly part of the third deck. I'd appreciate some MILHIST/SHIPS people commenting on this, as I'm not sure whether tons or feet would be better. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)